Jim, I assume your customer is okay with your business decision? People normally want to get to the destinations through the shortest AS path, who you are peering with and who you are buying transit from are important to your customers.
I guess it is your customer's business decision, they want to pass traffic through you so they will pay less to 1239, but you only pass 16631 to them or you force all their traffic out to 16631, so they will either have less chance to save money or have to use longer AS path, I guess your price is competitive. --kent ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Devane" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:16 AM Subject: Specific BGP Question [7:58428] > Hello all, > > Long time lurker, first time poster. > > I have a router that is multi-homed between 16631 and 701. > I have a new client who is buying transit from us. > They are multi-homed to us and 1239. > A business decision was made to policy route their traffic out 16631. > As a result I will only publish 16631 routes to them. > However, if 16631 goes away, I want to be able to push the 701 routes to > them. > Injecting a default wouldn't be very effective here since 1239 will most > likely have a more specific route! > So Conditional Adv to the rescue. However..I have a few questions I am > unsure about and I don't have a lab to try it out on. > > In this config: > > router bgp XXXX > nei New_Client remote-as Client_AS > nei New_Client filter-list 4 in > nei New_Client filter-list 3 out > > ip as path access-list 3 permit .* > ip as-path access-list 4 permit ^Client_AS$ > > so far so good.... > I want to add this... > > nei New_Client advertise-map MAP1 non-exist-map MAP2 > > route-map MAP1 permit 10 > match as-path 5 > route-map MAP2 permit 10 > match as-path 6 > > ip as-path access-list 5 ^$ _16631_ > ip as-path access-list 6 ^$ _701_ > > > SO NOW THE QUESTIONS!!! > > 1) What is the order of operation for the advertisement out? Will the > Filter-list showing all routes cancel any effect of the route-map? > 2) Are the MAP1 and MAP2 route maps valid in this config because they use > as-path? The config's I could find as example were based on Prefix. I made > up the part about using the as-path, but it seems logical (boy, I wish I had > a couple extra routers!) > 3) Is there a better way to go about this! > > Thanks in advance. And thanks to everybody who posts. I have taken away a > lot from this mailing-list! > > Jim Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58481&t=58428 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
